Can Predators Regulate Small Mammal Populations? Evidence from House Mouse Outbreaks in Australia

Sinclair, A. R. E.; Olsen, Penny; Redhead, T.D.

doi:10.2307/3545150

Cited by 116 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results indicate that the seroprevalence of at least some of the infectious agents present in wild mouse populations may be density-dependent, an important prerequisite if a parasite is to be capable of regulating population density [27]. However, our [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Prevalence of viral antibodies and helminths in field populations of house mice (Mus domesticus) in southeastern Australia

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 13-month study of wild mice (MVus domesticus) in wheatlands in southeastern Australia contrasted changes in the seroprevalence of antibody to 13 viruses and the occurrence of helminths with changes in their population dynamics. Mice were seropositive for mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), rotavirus, minute virus of mice (MVM), mouse adenovirus (MAdV), reovirus (reo 3), and murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV). The seroprevalences of all but rotavirus varied significantly with time and increased with host density. Near the end of the study, host density declined rapidly and the seroprevalence of MVM and reo 3 increased significantly. These two viruses had low seroprevalence when host survival was high and high seroprevalence when host survival was low, indicating they may play a role in regulating mouse populations. In the case of MVM, there was evidence of a viral epizootic during the decline in mouse abundance. The prevalence of four helminths (Taenia taeniaeformis, Syphacia obvelata, and Vampirolepis spp.) differed significantly with time but showed no apparent association with host density. These findings highlight the need for further study on the effect of viruses on the population dynamics of mice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Prevalence of viral antibodies and helminths in field populations of house mice (Mus domesticus) in southeastern Australia

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…: Henttonen et al 1987;Erlinge 1987) or episodic irruptions (Mus sp. : Sinclair et al 1990). Avoidance of predator odors is well documented in these latter groups (Sullivan et al 1988a;Merkens et al 199 1 ;Dickman 1992;Drickamer et al 1992; and references therein; but see Boonstra et al 1982).…”

Section: Species Capturedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do olfactory cues mediate interactions between rodents on northern shortgrass prairie?

Stapp¹,

Horne²

1996

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We counted captures of free-ranging deer mice (Peromyscus municulatus) in odor-baited traps to determine whether deer mice use olfactory cues to detect and evade grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster), a predator and possible competitor on northern shortgrass prairie. Avoidance was measured using the frequency of captures in traps containing grasshopper mouse odors compared with that in traps containing odors of an innocuous rodent (Reithrodontomys megalotis) and in clean traps. We predicted that deer mice would be most deterred by odors in areas where grasshopper mice were common, and during winter, when alternative prey for grasshopper mice are less abundant. We also expected reproductive females to show greater avoidance because of the vulnerability of litters in burrows. Surprisingly, deer mice showed no evidence of avoidance in any experiments. These results are consistent with trapping records from capture-recapture studies on our site. We assert that the presence of grasshopper mice may affect the surface activity of deer mice, but that deer mice apparently do not use olfactory cues to avoid grasshopper mice. Taken with other studies noting the lack of avoidance of predator odors by deer mice and similar species, our results suggest that the response of rodents to predator odors is more variable than was previously appreciated.RCsumC : Nous avons comptC le nombre de Souris sylvestres (Peromyscus municulatus) capturCes dans des pikges h odeurs pour dCterminer si ces souris utilisent les odeurs pour repCrer et Cviter les Souris-h-sauterelles borCales, Onychomys leucogaster, prCdateurs et compCtiteurs probables dans la prairie boreale d'herbes courtes. La rCaction d'aversion a Ct C mesurCe par comparaison de la frCquence des captures dans les pikges h odeurs de souris-h-sauterelles h la frCquence des captures dans les pikges h odeurs d'un rongeur inoffensif (Rheithrodontomys megalotis), ou dans les pikges propres. Nous avons posC en hypothkse que les souris fuiraient les odeurs des souris-h-sauterelles, surtout dans les zones oh ces animaux sont communs, et au cours de l'hiver, au moment oh les proies de rechange des souris-h-sauterelles sont moins abondantes. Nous nous attendions aussi h ce que les femelles en phase reproductrice Cvitent encore davantage les pikges h odeurs de souris-h-sauterelles h cause de la vulnCrabilitC de leur progCniture dans les terriers. ~tonnamment, les souris n'ont montrC d'aversion particulikre pour aucune des odeurs. Ces rksultats concordent avec les rCsultats des pidgeages effectuCs au cours d'expkriences de capture-recapture sur le meme territoire. Les souris-h-sauterelles peuvent affecter 1'activitC de surface des Souris sylvestres, mais celles-ci ne semblent pas se guider sur les odeurs pour Cviter les souris-h-sauterelles. Combines aux rCsultats d'autres Ctudes qui dknotent l'absence d'aversion pour les odeurs des prCdateurs chez les Souris sylvestres et chez d'autres espkces semblables, nos rCsultats indiquent que la rCaction des rongeurs aux odeurs des prCdate...

show abstract

“…Selection of certain prey groups is often associated directly with the morphology and behavior of the prey (Derting and Cranford 1989) and indirectly with habitats (Trejo and Guthmann 2003). For example, strongly territorial individuals may travel shorter distances (Vassallo et al 1994, Bellocq 1998, whereas juvenile small mammals tend to disperse further (Sinclair et al 1990), thus making them more vulnerable to predators. Differential predation has been described in numerous owl species, e.g., Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus; Blem et al 1993), Eurasian Eagle-Owl (Bubo bubo; Donazar and Ceballos 1989), Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus; Longland andJenkins 1987, Rohner andKrebs 1996), and Eastern Screech-Owls (Otus asio; Marti and Hogue 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Absence of Differential Predation on Rats by Malaysian Barn Owls in Oil Palm Plantations

Puan

Goldizen

Mohamed

et al. 2011

Journal of Raptor Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can Predators Regulate Small Mammal Populations? Evidence from House Mouse Outbreaks in Australia

Cited by 116 publications

References 22 publications

Prevalence of viral antibodies and helminths in field populations of house mice (Mus domesticus) in southeastern Australia

Prevalence of viral antibodies and helminths in field populations of house mice (Mus domesticus) in southeastern Australia

Do olfactory cues mediate interactions between rodents on northern shortgrass prairie?

Absence of Differential Predation on Rats by Malaysian Barn Owls in Oil Palm Plantations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About